Cameras, new

Thursday, 09 July 2015

I learned this long ago when I wrote an editorial for Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques and made a flippant reference to "a janitor from Dubuque" (for non-U.S. persons, Dubuque is a city in Iowa that, like Peoria in Illinois, is sometimes used as a symbol for a nondescript, typical, "anywhere" kind of place). I meant "janitor from Dubuque" in the sense of "anybody from anywhere."

But that magazine had 21,000 readers at the time, and one of them was—yup, you guessed it—a janitor from Dubuque...who sent me a hurt letter wondering why he had been singled out for scorn.

I learned that lesson.

In the same way, general recommendations land. If I say that the Sony A7R II is one of the most desirable cameras on the market right now, 400 people will go look at the link, four people will buy one, and two more will remark what a coincidence it is that I should say that right after they bought a Sony A7R II.

Anyway, this is just to say that I'm not talking here about generalized camera advice.

I used to take requests for advice super-seriously. I'd question the friend about their needs, analyze the factors that pertained, apply my deep knowledge of the options available on the market, and tell them what, in my considered judgement, they should purchase.

...Which advice they would promptly completely ignore. Later, when I saw them again, I'd be told with a little laugh that they liked my choice and appreciated my advice, but, well, they went to Best Buy and the kid behind the counter thought that the Amygdala IQ87 was the best bargain, and they liked the look of it, so they bought that instead.

But, thanks anyway.

Eventually what I realized was that no one ever took my advice. As in, never. Not once. It never happened. Nine times out of nine they'd listen to my careful, painstaking analysis that took me hours to compile, and ignore it and go buy something else on a whim.

So that's why I stopped advising friends and relatives about what camera to buy. It's not that I don't want to; it's not that I can't; it's certainly not that I don't want to do them the favor—I'd be more than happy to help; it's just that it's been my observation that they never end up taking my advice anyway.

So anyway, now I just tell everybody to buy a Sony RX10 II or RX100. (We're on Version IV already.) Neither are actually the perfect choice for everybody who asks. But since none of them will buy one anyway, I'm safe.

Mike

P.S. Jeez, all three cameras I mentioned here are Sonys. What's up with that?

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Peter Wright: "What!! Does this mean that you are no longer recommending everyone to get a Nikon D700, with 35mm ƒ/2 and 85mm ƒ/1.8 lenses as in your 'Letter to George'? That's the reason I started reading TOP! Of course, I didn't buy a D700."

Mike replies: George did not take my advice, or he'd still be happily using his D700, eating out every week, and flying first class.

Dave Rogers: "I don't give camera advice with respect to a particular model, unless someone asks a particular question. But I have appealed to my Facebook friends, and my tiny audience at my blog, to at least buy a camera! While smartphone cameras are vastly more capable than the little Kodak Instamatics my parents used to record many of our family's special moments, nearly any modern camera is more capable than a smartphone in any number of regards; and if one enjoys taking pictures, it's even more enjoyable with a dedicated camera. In the couple of years I've been making this appeal, I know I've made at least three sales. Alas."

Mike replies: Keep fighting the good fight, Dave.

Jason: "I don't like to give advice on camera purchases. Too many people think that buying a good camera is all they need to do to take good photos. If they get the camera and can't take good photos they might think I gave them bad advice."

Mike replies: Funny but probably true!

Mark: "Back in the '80s I worked at a decent-sized mom and pop camera store. All too frequently customers would simply walk in and ask me for the 'best' camera. I knew that usually what they really were asking was, what's the best camera for me? But at this point I of course have no idea of their wants or needs.

"So my frequent answer to this question was to pull out either a Hassy 500C or a Pentax 645. This usually resulted in a look of shock due to the size of the camera or an instant question of 'how expensive is that?' When I answered the cost question they would mildly freak out and insist I put the camera away.

"Playing this little game normally had the exact result I was looking for, which was to make the customer realize that we needed to ask a bunch of questions so that we could find the product that correctly met their needs.

"Of course at times they would still buy the wrong thing despite you directing them to what should be perfect based on what they had told you. At which point all you could do is throw up your hands and let them do whatever it is they want to do, just as you have done Mike. All you can do is try to help.

"As a bonus however, it also meant that I sold more Pentax 645's than anybody else. :-)

"Nowadays, if I were still selling cameras, I too would grab the Leica S and plop it on the counter just like I did with the Hassy 30 years ago."

Thursday, 02 July 2015

Two extremes on the camera intimidation spectrum. On the left, a recently auctioned Leica rifle camera. It's probably just as well these never caught on. On the right, a nanny with a Rolleiflex.

-

Written byJohn Kennerdell

It was only near the tail end of the film era, around 1998, that I finally acquired the camera I’d longed for since my student days: an old mint-condition Rollei twin-lens reflex. Just hefting its weight and touching those precise German controls made me think, oh yes, here we go. With a machine like this even I ought to be able to carve my name upon the photographic firmament.

Like so much in life, the reality fell short. Not that I really expected the firmament to take much note, but I couldn’t even reliably focus the damn thing. Fair enough, I could if I flipped up the magnifier loupe and squinted right into it, but that kind of defeated the point of waist-level framing. And so eventually off it went to KEH, where I hope it found a new owner with better eyes than mine.

That began my quest to find myself a digital equivalent: a Fauxliflex. I’ll spare you the twists and turns of the search, but suffice to say that by a couple years ago I had not one but two matching bodies that finally fit the bill. Flip-up screens, quiet shutters, good enough image quality. Apart from low light or events (I’ll get to that), they’re mostly all I’ve used since. So I thought it might be time to offer a few thoughts on shooting from the belly button á la digital.

The three-foot-high clubThis is the paradoxical and wonderful thing about a waist-level finder: it helps you be more anonymous when shooting candidly, and yet more personal when working with your subject.

Raise a camera to your eye and people take notice. Point it directly at them and their reaction can escalate into concern, nervousness, even anger. Of course we learn to deal with that, and every good street photographer develops his or her own ways to keep things relaxed. Still, the gun-like aspect of an eye-level finder is always going to hold a certain subliminal threat: I’m looking at you through this machine and I’m about to...shoot.

Here's the pair of waist-level digicams I’ve been using for the past few years. The lenses stay attached, black for normal and silver for wide, so I reflexively know what view to expect when I pick them up. That “72,621” is the shutter count—hardly breaking a sweat for a real Rollei but not bad from a $500 consumer appliance.

A waist-level camera is still, clearly, a camera. People can see the lens and if they notice you they'll know perfectly well what you're doing. But there's something of a remove: your immediate attention is not on your subject but your camera. Maybe you're fiddling around with it a bit, geeky and harmless. It's all so low-key that many people don't notice at all. For fly-on-the-wall photography, that's about as non-intrusive as it gets.

Now the flip side: holding a camera halfway down your body is also pretty much ideal whenever you want to engage with a subject. As far as I know, the late Tim Hetherington didn't choose a Rolleiflex out of any special love for film or even the square format. It was a machine thoroughly unsuited to 21st-century combat zones. He used it, by all accounts, because he liked to maintain full contact with his subjects while shooting. By that I mean not just eye contact but talking, interacting, communicating with facial and body language. The camera essentially disappears.

Whether working candidly or otherwise, shooting from the waist brings one more benefit we seldom hear mentioned. You're no longer at eye level, where generally there's nothing else but heads. You're just a bit lower, down where all kinds of other things are happening. There are peoples' bodies, the way they're dressed, the things they're holding and doing, the place they're standing and everything it contains. Yes, using an eye-level finder of course you can point your camera downward, or lean forward or kneel, or do whatever else it takes to get it all in. But from the waist, more often than not, you simply aim the camera straight ahead and a balanced composition falls into place.

In the market, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. I've always liked the kind of framing that happens naturally when working from the waist. Your subjects' heads are suddenly above the horizon, or at least the clutter. You see more of their hands, their bodies, their context. It's decidedly not the perspective you normally get from your own eyes (well, unless you're a child), but photographically often it's just right.

Tips from the hipRight then, some assorted thoughts on the whole digital waist-level approach. These are purely personal, so take or leave them as you will.

Apart from focusing, the main problem with the Rollei for me was just holding it steady. TLR users had a number of tricks, like pulling it down against a taut neck strap or holding it tight against your belly. But fundamentally, supporting a camera in your two hands is never going to be as steady as also pressing it against something nice and solid like a handy skull, typically your own. Ah ha, you say, but now we have image stabilization. We do, and it’s a big part of what helps these cameras work for me. Yet I don’t believe it’s the panacea that many people now seem to think. The steadier you can hold your camera, the sharper you can still expect your results to be. But here's the good news: the more you shoot with two-point as opposed to three-point support, the better you seem to get at it. TLR shooters used to say as much, but only with experience have I come to believe them.

Instead of arching my index finger over the shutter release, I usually find myself keeping my right thumb flat along the top of the camera and then flexing it to trip the shutter. Partly it just feels more comfortable that way when holding a camera low, partly it may be out of a subconscious recognition that it sends one less visual cue as to the moment of the shot.

Again, if it wasn't clear above, I'm not talking about sneaking photos. It's just about being minimally invasive.

Waist-level viewing might work best for those of us who like to crop square. It’s fine for horizontals too, of course. But verticals? Maybe you could try one of those "fully-articulated"* screens? (I’m just guessing here. They never seem to work for me for anything. Long live the flip-up, in-line screen.)

To me the Fauxliflex feels more natural with single focal-length lenses than zooms. Probably that’s something about knowing where you want to be even before you look at the camera and compose the photo. I treat a waist-level finder mainly as a final confirmation of what’s in the frame, not as a window to peer into while moving all about and zooming in and out. Feel free to differ.

I don't like it with longer lenses, but then I don't use them much, and anyhow wasn't the Tele Rolleiflex a bit of an odd duck too? Waist-level is also usually less than optimal for events and other jobs where everyone knows and accepts that there’s someone with a camera who’s going to be snapping like mad the whole time. When you’re really working a scene, in my opinion still nothing beats the responsiveness and immersive quality of an eye-level optical finder.

Anyhow I'm quite devoted to my Fauxliflexes, and while no doubt even better ones will come along presently, I could happily carry on with exactly what I have now. But perhaps that is where true photographic fulfillment lies: finding what works for you, and then just getting on with it.

John

*A slight misnomer, as they don't swing in the one direction that many of us most want. Sony proved with some of its DSLRs that it is possible to design a true fully-articulated screen, but a side hinge ain't it.

John Kennerdell writes two essays a year for TOP. His past contributions can be found under his name in the Categories list in the right-hand sidebar.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Hugh Crawford (partial comment): "I can not stand using eye level viewing. Composition is so much easier when you aren't looking 'through' the camera."

[For complete comments from which "partial comments" are taken, please see the Comments Section. —Ed.]

Peter Van Dyken: "In a day so long ago when I was thoroughly convinced that it was the camera and not the photographer that made the difference, I bought a Hasselblad with an 80mm lens. I enthusiastically support everything that John mentioned about the experience of waist-level shooting and would add a further consideration that I discovered in sporting about with the 'Blad. I came to appreciate what became to me a very significant difference between eye-level and waist-level composition, that being the difference between shooting with two eyes on the screen as opposed to one. I began to imagine that I saw three dimensions in my efforts to compose. I'm sure for many it would make no difference but for me it was the factor that brought a pleasure into photography that I had not known before."

Kodachromeguy: "One of the nice aesthetic features of portraits taken with a Rolleiflex or Fauxliflex is that the subject is often mid-body. Gents look heroic. And ladies are evenly proportioned—they do not have that absurd big head and tiny diminishing body that you see in Hollywood pictures where a six-foot paparazzi held his monster Canikonflex at eye level while photographing a petite lady."

Tuesday, 23 June 2015

When a new Nikon or Canon camera comes out I always pick one one up to test in the "LensAlign Lab" to check for any issues. I also like a hands-on feel so I can answer customer questions from my own experience. In the case of high-resolution cameras like the brand new Canon 5DS and 5DS R, I was particularly interested because the degree of precision in its autofocus would be so critical for these cameras to realize the true potential of their native resolution.

I purchased a 5DS R with the above intent in mind. No surprises in the lab. But after some real world shooting, I was impressed enough with how it performed in my own photography that I decided to put together a "Real World Review" video that your readers might find informative.

—Michael Tapes

[Here are the links for LensAlign and FocusTune. I think it's also interesting that this video shows you one reason why Michael developed these products...he clearly needed them for his work. As you might for yours...or you might just want them to optimize your system because you appreciate precision. —MJ]

Saturday, 20 June 2015

As you know, our old friends Ctein and John Camp a.k.a. John Sandford have written a book. Scheduled for release in early October, you can pre-order Saturn Run and read the first two chapters here.

For the book, John was paid a niggle, a pip—a palt, you might say, which would be the noun form of the adjective paltry—and Ctein was paid infinity dollars. The amounts were the same in U.S. currency, but that would be an inaccurate way of looking at it. As Albert Einstein—not the physicist, the bartender at Al Einstein's Smoothie Bar—liked to opine, "everything's relative."* John's palt and Ctein's infinity dollars are the relative amounts.

My guess. Version II. Before this date in August.

Being a scientist myself**, I've decided to sit back and merely observe. Because, with infinity relative dollars now burning a black hole in his pocket, Ctein can afford any camera. No, not the Softwood Box or the Ur-Leica, but any consumer digital camera. He has an Epson 99999000000000 which is approximately as long as a medium-range U.S. Navy cruiser; but his current camera of choice is an Olympus OM-D E-M5. I hypothesize (we scientists start out with hypotheses) that this will not be the case for long. I could be wrong. (Scientific hypotheses can always be wrong.)

So the current question of scientific not to say philosophical inquiry must be, what does a great printer with a great printer buy when he can buy anything? A Leica S? A Canon 5DS R? Something else with an "S" in it? How about a Sony a7R II or something else with a "II" in it? The Nikon D810 or D750? Something else with a "D" in it. (Probably not. No diss to Canikon, but "D" is getting to be an old letter...stale and unfashionable. Ctein, who contrary to rumor is not an alien but rather a Chinese immortal, is also old, but neither stale nor unfashionable—just look at his glasses. "S" and "X" are cooler letters than "D" now, although "X" is looking distinctly faddish. See how easily I can get off track even in the short stretch of a blog post?)

The watch starts now. We are taking bets on a.) how long, and b.) what. (We scientists always place bets on outcomes. Did you know that? Remember I might be wrong.)

How to spell BerekeleyJust put an "e" between all the consonants. There are all sorts of tricks I could give you to help you become a better speller.

Why you haven't read anything on the blog for a whileBecause I'm working on a post about all the new cameras. Each increment of halfway to finishing takes just as long, and thus, theoretically, I can never finish. Science is hard. I think I'll quit being a scientist now.

Mike

*Actually he said "every-f---in'-thing's relative," but we observe middlebrow conventions of propriety here.

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

jim woodard: "I'm pretty sure based on Ctein's scientific interest and knowledge and his interest in solar astronomy he will most likely buy the full lineup of Hasselblad Stellar, Lunar, and Lusso!"

Roger Bradbury: "I read the first two chapters of Saturn Run, but now I have to wait until October? Aaaaaaaaargh! I've been reading Sci-Fi since 1972 or so and I know the real thing when I see it. This is the real thing. I'm looking forward to reading the rest."

Alan Fairley: "I am particularly interested because Ctein is a printer (and one who knows how to get all of what is in a file out of it), not a pixel-peeping web poster."

Gabe (partial comment): "I somehow don't think Ctein will splurge...doesn't fit my perception of the man. Here comes the big HOWEVER, however. If I was in his position, and in spite of having read his thoughts on how many (few) pixels one really needs, I'm thinking of a once-in-a-lifetime treat. And to me that means Leica S and a couple or three lenses, and minor accessories. Either that or a nice Porsche Cayman.

"In any case many kudos to him...well deserved!"

James Sinks: "I can't imagine Ctein buying a DSLR. He's referred to the prosumer size cameras as boat anchors in the past and seems quite happy with the tiny mirrorless setups. Also, don't forget that Ctein took a Phase One MF system out for a test drive at one point and decided it wasn't for him. If he gets a new camera, my first bet would be that he just moves up to the latest and greatest M43 body. If he jumps systems, I think the Sony A7R II would be the logical place for him to land, and if not that, then the Sony A7S (or even one of each)...but at the same time, the Sony compressed raw format might be a deal killer for him. I think the only thing that would move Ctein to buy a DSLR is if he suddenly decides to embrace studio shooting and he wants a dedicated camera to leave sitting on a tripod 24/7. The 5DS might be tempting at that point, but probably not."

Thursday, 18 June 2015

I don't know about you (well, until you tell me, and now you can), but to me the new Canon 5DS is like the Mercedes S-Class (one of which I actually got to drive in, thanks to Juan Buhler. You might remember).

Mercedes S Class

The camera equivalent, the Canon 5Ds

A photo by Juan (not taken with the Canon 5DS)

Juan

I.e., big, bold, overbuilt, and rockin' it old school...the traditional idea of a car, and a DSLR, extended to the current iteration of utmost according to the current fashion. Do you agree?

Sorry to be so self-referential, but it reminds me of not one but two things I said in the distant past:

First, that you really don't need all those pixels unless you're going to print for absolutely the very highest levels of fine detail. The most pixels you can use for screen viewing is 14.7 million—that's what you need to completely fill the 27-inch viewing screen of the new Retina iMac (one of which, loaded, Ctein recently acquired for the Stationary Starship at No. 42 Skyline Drive, and which he will hopefully review for us in July). As for prints, you'll need a very refined eye to see the improvements this many pixels would supply.

The second thing is a bit more conceptual. In the '90s, I used to pose the following riddle to students who I thought were getting a bit too bogged down in technical perfectionism. It was a thought experiment. Imagine that you had a camera that can make a technically perfectly sharp, perfectly true-color photograph under virtually any conditions. What then? That is, technical problems aside, what are you going to do with a camera? What can you think to use it for?

Because making a picture that's technically okay is where photography begins, not where it ends.

I think it's kind of amusing that we're essentially there. The Canon 5DS is the camera from my 1990s thought experiment. :-) (The world we're born into is the way we expect the world to be; when we get older, we live in the future.)

And if you want to go all-in, and print big (or leave that option open, which is why I think a lot of people go for higher-megapixel cameras), well then, you could buy a Canon 5DS (and I would get the pictured lens for it, too—that lens is one of the world's best and all by itself a great reason to shoot Canon FF) and then not even have to think about cameras for the next six years or so.

Oh, and one more thing you might want to read about, re the 5DS: The Point of Sufficiency. Are we there yet? To quote the kids in the back of the car.

Mike

Commentary from TOP Technical Editor Ctein: On the "print big" thing, that doesn't scale up as fast as people think. Oh yes, there will be some people who will press their noses up against a 4x5-foot print, but that's not the usual way of viewing them. People do unconsciously expect larger prints to cover a larger part of their field of view, but only somewhat larger. Look at an 8x10 print on your wall from what feels like a close comfortable viewing distance. Now do the same thing for a 16x20 print. You'll likely be about 50% further back. Going to a 30x40-inch print? You'll be another 30% back.

These are average figures for average discerning viewers. There always exceptions. (E.g., you can do billboards with really low resolution cameras, because no one gets anywhere close to them—they need less actual resolution than a 3x5-inch print.) Good rule of thumb: for similar apparent sharpness, you need twice as many pixels for a 16x20-inch print as an 8x10. If you're going all the way up to 30x40, make that modestly more than three times as many pixels.

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Mahn England (partial comment): "I like the car analogy. I would think of it in Range Rover terms: extremely capable off-road but never taken off the asphalt. I have one by the way and the IQ is brilliant. I often crop severely and all those pixels come in handy when you do that."

Robert Harshman: "I could not disagree more about adding pixels. But then I'm not your father's photographer. I deal in the new medium of computational photography. The one where algorithms rule. And we need all the pixels we can get so we can transform them into whatever we want. And extract 3D information, etc. from a 2D image.

"More pixels is the future, as is even more advanced computational photography that extracts and purposes image data in ways we can only imagine today. More pixels, greater dynamic range and context data from a growing list of sensors. The camera of the future will not only be capturing image data but a long list of other things. Photography is in its biggest change since it was invented. The next ten years will surpass the last 180."

Geoff Wittig: "I will confess to taking delivery of a new EOS 5DS R today, and it pretty much provides exactly what I'm looking for. I recognize this is contrary to the observations of most commenters hereabouts...and that's okay. Horses for courses.

"To their credit, Canon has emphasized that the 5DS/5DS R are basically specialized tools for a particular niche, rather than a Veblen good. A responsive small mirror-less ILC with a lens or two would be great for street photography and most general use. I shoot landscapes, and more specifically Eastern North American landscapes that generally have lots of high frequency forest details. I use a large format inkjet printer and make prints up to 8 feet long that you can walk into and press your nose against. Really good resolution of fine details is essential to the illusion. At least in my work, I'm painfully aware of the resolution limits imposed by the ~21 mp cameras I've been using. I generally have to work very hard to minimize these limitations with stitching and similar techniques.

"Yes, a medium format digital system would be great, but I'd have to sell a kidney to afford one. New lenses for the 'affordable' Pentax 645z are crazy expensive, and prices for good used lenses are spiraling upward. And I already have a closet full of excellent Canon glass. So for me, the 5Ds R is a bargain.

"I'm used to hiking miles with a heavy tripod, two bodies and four or five lenses, and I love the view through a good prism finder, so the lighter weight and smaller size of mirror-less systems are mostly lost on me."

Thursday, 14 May 2015

Okay, okay, one more and then I'll stop. (Or will I? Can you control fanboyism? Or is it a compulsion, beyond the reach of willpower? Shut up, Mike....)

If the X-T1 was inspired by the Fujica ST-901, as we learned in the Verge article linked in the last post, does that mean that the Fujifilm X-T10 due to be released in a few days is a riff of the old Fujica ST-701 of 1971?

New Fujifilm X-T10, coming soon

Fujica ST-701 of 1971

Cameras are fun. (Thanks to Kevin Purcell for this.)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Editors can't help but edit—sorry—and if I were editing that piece we would have, ah, discussed the weak intro. "Photography has been around for close to 200 years and...the basic idea behind a photograph hasn’t changed much. Cameras are a pretty mature technology...." Um, well, there was this little switch from film to digital I'm sure you've heard about, only a few years ago. If that wasn't much of a change, I don't know what would be.

• The look of the camera was based loosely on the Fujica ST-901 of 1974.

• Iida-san says Fuji wanted to break the perception that OVFs are superior to EVFs.

• Imai-san says the design is "flat and straight and based on 'good-old-days' camera style," and then makes the perhaps surprising admission that the camera is "very simple, not so ergonomic."

• They trace electronic controls back to the Minolta 7000 of 1985, and analogize it to automatic transmissions in cars—and we all know how that pushes my buttons. I disliked the Minolta 7000, too.

• "The team agonized over countless minor decisions that all add up, and it’s impossible to satisfy everyone," Sam Byford writes of Sakuma-san's difficult task.

• The article adds that "although the X-T1 feels like more of a complete package at launch than its predecessors, Imai says the team has already collated a list of 140 potential improvements based on customer feedback." For instance, apparently Fujifilm has gotten plentitudinous complaints about the too-small buttons that aren't tactile enough.

• There's some interesting defenses of the APS-C sensor size. One bit of feedback that might come as a surprise? That pros don't care about the size of the sensor. Not so sure about that, but okay.

As I say, very interesting...even if you're not an X-T1 fanboy.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Adam Lanigan (partial comment): "Not that quantity is any arbiter of quality, but I took three times as many photos in the past year with my X-T1 than in any prior year with whatever combination of film or digital gear. That to me just shows that the X-T1 has finally become that 'take everywhere' camera for me—it feels odd to leave the house without it."

Friday, 08 May 2015

In the newest addition to the "Items for Sale (Con't.)," the Leica M7 and lens, there are two pictures of the camera from slightly different angles. As a quick-and-dirty test of two different cameras for web use, which picture do you like better, top or bottom?

Thanks,

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Peter Wright: "On my 13" MacBook Air, the top shot is definitely better (sharper, more contrast, and more dof). However, you could really use either camera for on-line sales. (By the way. Does John know you are selling his M7 and 35mm? ;-) If I didn't already have an MP I would be buying!)"

Mike replies: Yes, I'm selling it on consignment for him. The camera and lens have resided on my shelf for the past four years.

Most people preferred the top shot. So the lesson is, people like a bit more contrast. To end the suspense: The bottom picture was taken with the Fuji X-t1 and 23mm ƒ/1.4 lens, and the top one was taken with the iPhone 6+. Not a controlled comparison, and not rigged; I simply shot each as I have all the other product shots, hurriedly and with no particular care, and then gave each one minimal processing to 800 pixels wide. The Leica M7 (you have to specify...I agree with Ned W that "M7" means Mamiya 7!) was in the same place for both shots but, as several people noticed, the camera position is not exactly the same for both, which has various effects, not least of which is that the iPhone 6+ shot needed more vertical correction. Several people saw the resulting distortion.

But it's surprising that overall, more people preferred the top (iPhone) shot, which does have a little more contrast.

I don't know though...should a guy who writes a photo blog be taking equipment shots with an iPhone 6+?!? Doesn't seem...seemly. I'd like a little more control than that...over focal length and aperture particularly, and I'd like to be able to shoot RAW to give me more dynamic range when I need it. In studio settings, classically, photographers control dynamic range with lighting, and can match any material. But these are quick-and-dirty shots taken with overhead lights.

"Existing" light...the light that exists in my basement. :-)

I'm leaning toward the Panasonic LX7 at the moment. It's got a (very) fast lens, a small sensor, and good IS, and it's quite cheap right now at $328. (The world changes so fast...remember when the LX3 was the hot ticket and Panasonic couldn't keep the pipeline filled? People agonized and complained, aching to buy one at $600 or more.)

Saturday, 02 May 2015

TOP needs to make room and free up some discretionary funds, so I'll be doing a major "closet dump" sometime very soon. We'll be offering late-model, low-use digital cameras at substantial savings, lenses (including a few rare exotics), and film cameras (some fine, some funky) as well as my extensive collection of darkroom equipment. (Please, somebody report this on the APUG and the LFF!) For local buyers, some books and prints will also be on the block.

Please keep an eye out if you're interested.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Ann: "I just finished my own closet clear-out a couple of weeks ago. It was liberating, and I feel lighter seeing the empty shelves. The pile of cash in the desk drawer (I used Craigslist) ain't bad, either."

Thursday, 30 April 2015

Leica Camera has introduced a new version of the M Monochrom black-and-white-only camera. The Type 246 is said to have a newly developed full-frame 24-MP CMOS B&W sensor and the Maestro processor from the Type 240, and has acquired some minor upgrade features from the M-P.

The camera will ship May 7th and the price is $7,450.

The early samples look tonally stunning, which has not always been my impression of the original (depending on who was doing the processing of course). I hope some enterprising website will do a comparison with converted Fuji files.

There's a promo video by the great Icelandic photographer Ragnar Axelsson.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

John Krumm: "I have to agree about the early samples. I love the look of the horses in front of the log pile in the snow, shot at ƒ/13 and surprisingly '3D' on my screen, to use an overused description. Here's the link to the samples, in case others want a look."

Mani Sitaraman: "[Ragnar's] are beautiful pictures, but it is hard to judge the tonality of the new Monochrom from them. Specifically, they appear to be shot in winter in a far Northern latitude. As those who have traveled above the 55th parallel or so, the light there has an unusual quality and makes these pictures look almost as if they were taken on infrared film. Yes, they do look spectacular (somehow, they remind me of Paul Strand's pictures from the Outer Hebrides). But I'm unsure how the camera's images from the everyday lighting more typical in middle latitudes closer to the equator will look."

Lou: "As always, a load full of marketing bull (come on! comparing it to a field camera!). No wonder they cost so much with the need for all this marketing crap."

Kent Phelan responds to Lou: "Dear Lou, I believe it could compare to a field camera. I have not used nor seen the Monochrom 246, but I do own an M Monochrom. I've had it for about a year and have shot 5500–6000 images with it. I think my MM gives better results than my old beloved Mamiya 7 using TMX film. In the '90s the Mamiya 7 was my main camera along with a Linhof Technika 2000. I used the Mamiya so much the rubber covering wore off. I have waited 14 years for something like the Leica Monochrom to come along. It has nothing to do with megapixels, the 'Leica Glow' etc. It has everything to do with tonality, tonal transitions, and doing an eerily fine job of imitating medium format T-Max 100 rotary processed in a Jobo processor. It has been a long time since I have seen this, and I for one am in no hurry to look at this new CMOS based Monochrom. The original, to me, is pure magic."

Wednesday, 15 April 2015

It was three years, four months, and 27 days ago that TOP declared the Sony NEX-7 "the Most Desirable Camera on the Planet." At the time the NEX-7 had just been introduced and was very hard to get, and the body alone sold for just a tick shy of $1,200. Dpreview called it "something of a technological triumph for Sony." Most reviews were admiring raves. NEX-7 pride of ownership soared high.

Camera half-lives are very short these days.The now nearly forgotten NEX-7.

That was then. Now, more than 21 dog-years later, the NEX name is kaput, and the very last remainders of the build are trickling out of the pipeline for $498—and that's with an 18–55mm image-stabilized normal zoom lens. The lens alone sells for $298 (I think that's the same lens), making the once-vaunted NEX-7 into a $200 "throw-in"!

In fairness, in 2011 it was a fair assumption that Sony was going to fill out the APS-C E-mount lens line, which, notoriously, it never has. Sony let Fuji swoop in and take over the APS-C mirrorless mindshare with a well-thought-out range of enticing lenses. Sony itself has shifted to FF mirrorless, where it's doing great things.

The old—sorry, "old"—NEX-7 is still a nice camera, though, that can hold its own. And hey, look at it this way—if you've got one, it's cheap to keep.

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Huw Morgan: "It really is amazing that over three years have passed by so quickly. I have a NEX-7 and have no plans to replace it. It feels great in my hand, you can set aperture, exposure comp and ISO with just your right hand, the viewfinder is great and the sensor still stacks up pretty well. There are lots of lenses available for the camera and I'm very happy with the Zeiss 16–70mm despite all the controversy. It just works for me.

"The best thing of all is its weight (or lack thereof). Increasingly, my Canon gear sits in the bag and only comes out when I need a special lens that I don't have in my Sony kit. I've thought about Sony FF, but the weight of the lenses isn't all that different from my Canon gear, so I've resisted the urge so far.

"TOP was right three years ago. And you are right today. The NEX-7 is still pretty good and it is cheap to keep!"

Sunday, 08 March 2015

No, it's not what you think—I haven't ditched one brand and skipped to another. My "real" camera is still my Fuji X-T1 and 23mm lens, and that's not changing. This is what I got:

Eolake Stobblehouse kindly shared his impressions of the iPhone 6+ and that pushed me over the edge. My old phone was a 4S, vintage late 2011. That's about 25 in dog years, and aren't smartphone years roughly equivalent to dog years?

In the picture (notice how I cleverly integrate the obligatory Butters shot for this week into this iPhone post—oh, canny blogger) we see Butters with Zander's former favorite new hat. Nefarious hound himself is observable in the upper right, back in the bokeh.

I took the 6+ as my only camera to a gathering last night and shot not only a number of pictures with it, but, in the "What's the World Coming To" category, videos as well. Mike shooting videos?!? Preposterous. But you know the old expression, When in iRome, do as the iRomans do.

First impressions are that the camera, despite similar specs, actually is a big improvement. It's fun to use as a camera. The only thing that satisfies my creative itch right now is Fuji's inimitable way with B&W, but this is nice for snapshots.

Casual iPhone 6+ portrait photo the way it fell out of the phone. Don't know what's up with that color—discontinuous spectrum lighting perhaps? The color was uncorrectable, except by doing this...

By the bye, let me just make a prediction based on an old column of Ctein's and my sense of the smartphone market: somewhere in the 4–10-year timeframe, phone cameras will exceed the quality of all but the best professional DSLRs. Eventually, you'll use a small device with an array of camera modules to take an exposure that allows you to select things like angle of view and focus point after the fact, like we select white balance after the fact now, and which will easily adapt to huge file sizes or super light sensitivity as needed.

Of course, my crystal ball is a good deal cloudier than Ctein's.

Mike(Thanks to Eolake)

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Barry Prager: "I live in San Francisco, so I see more people taking photos than most. I used to watch them taking crappy photos with a dedicated camera, which at least forced them to take photos in the more appropriate horizontal orientation. Now they're taking the vast number of photos in the vertical position, like they were holding the phone to their ear. Usually with one hand! They would be taking photos of the Grand Canyon in a vertical position. Also the vast number of pictures will remain on their phone as they don't know how to get them onto the computer, or what to do with them if they do. Many billions of crappy photos as digital vapor. No negatives, or any record, is their future. We're in the best of times for photography, and the worst."

Mike replies: One of the theses of John Szarkowski's Photography Until Now was that devices in part dictate the way they are used. And it's not like there haven't been vertical-format cameras before...for instance the Fuji GS645s and the Linhof 220.

Linhof 220

jim (partial comment): "We're in SF this weekend and the city is plastered with iPhone photo billboards promoting it as a camera."

Mike replies: Well, I don't know, Bryce...the basic iPhone 6+ is $299 with a calling plan, and you kinda need a calling plan, since it doesn't work without one.

And this isn't exactly news, but it's a little more than just "a bloody telephone." It's a telephone you can carry around with you. And it's a very good dictation machine, with instant OCR (optical character recognition) built in. And you can write notes or letters on it...that are delivered instantly, more or less.

And I paid $700 in 2003 for a worse camera, albeit with a zoom lens. And I used to carry a pocket flashlight, which the iPhone has built-in. In the early '90s I inherited a hard drive the size of a small phone book that my brother paid $800 for...that stored 80 megabytes. My iPhone has 64 gigabytes of storage. I used to pay a quarter to play a game of Asteroids on a large machine at the corner 7-11—the iPhone offers many more games than that, lots of them free. Remember when Scrabble came in a box that contained a fold-out board and little wooden tiles? My girlfriend and I play Scrabble on her iPhone.

It's an extremely accurate pocket watch. It's also a stopwatch (I had to buy one of those in high school), a timer, and a world clock. Remember organizers, or planners? Thick sheaves of bound paper with in a leather or vinyl wraparound binding? It's got that.

I always wanted an Epson Photo Viewer but could never afford one. The iPhone serves.

It's literally easier to get the current outdoor temperature on the iPhone than it is to look out the window at the thermometer.

My brother paid nearly $200 in high school for a scientific calculator. The calculator that comes with the iPhone is pretty basic, but I'll bet you can get apps for better ones.

I used to carry a sheaf of maps in the glove box in my car. The other day I needed to go somewhere I'd never been before, so I punched a button on the iPhone, said "Fork in the Road restaurant, Mukwonago, Wisconsin," and the iPhone spoke directions that took me to the front door. You can buy devices that only do that.

The other night it showed me which lanes of the freeway were closed for construction, before I left the house.

Remember the Sony Walkman? We paid good money for those in the '80s. You can store the equivalent of several sacks full of cassette tapes on the iPhone and listen to your music on earbuds, headphones, or any external device up to a full stereo rig if you want to.

It's a web browser. Tonight at dinner we used it to look up a list of all the museums in the Smithsonian system (the Hirshhorn and the National Zoo are part of the Smithsonian, turns out). I can even watch TV shows and movies on it, although I've never done so. Could replace the in-flight movie you used to watch on a long flight, but with a movie of your own choosing.

I use it to browse real estate listings.

It syncs with my car.

Best of all, you can read books on it. It's a bit small—I prefer my iPad Air for reading—but the 6+ is easily big enough to read on comfortably. It's even a book store, albeit one where it's harder to browse. I still like real bookstores. But then, from a real bookstore, I can't buy a book on a whim at 2 a.m. without getting out of bed, and start reading it 90 seconds later.

It does quite a few more useful things as well. Like it or don't like it, it's more than a bloody telephone!

Bryce replies to Mike: "Mike, and others..when I wrote my initial note was thinking outright purchase. I do not subscribe to this stupid contract bit although our government finally got off its collective ass so we are not bound by a three year contract. It is now a two-year contract plus the cost of the phone. Problem is here in Canada contract rates are C$50–90 a month plus toll charges plus the cost of the phone plus taxes. Have friends with an iPhone 6+ who are paying about $65 a month plus taxes and that's after being loyal custmers for years. Over two years, that new iPhone might be charged out at C$20.00/month give or take. It is as bad as if it were a fixed landline."

Mike replies: Well, but do you want them to give it to you for free? It's true, as Eolake points out, that Apple is richer than his home country (Denmark). But I'll give them my money for the product they're offering. It's worth it.

Here's the best expression of my feelings about the cost of the 6+:

Stephen Gilbert: "Do ya think there's a market for 'distressed' caps? A special 'Butters edition' à la the new Leica."

Speed: "Next thing we know, Mike will have an Instagram page."

Mike replies: What's this "Instagram" of which you speak? (I love being a Luddite, or at least playing one on the Internet.)

Steve P.: "Mike, I note with interest your detailed reply to Bryce Lee's comment and I'm wondering if you can get some kind of 'paddle app' for the iphone? I ask because if the iPhone ever fails you'll be right up S**t Creek!"

Mike replies: It's an issue. I've never had trouble with it myself, but my brother's iPhone failed at night in the thick of Boston traffic when they were depending on it to get to where they were going. It also looms as an issue in case of catastrophe, for instance natural disasters or war. But I presume we are working on contingency plans, since our government is so united and acting as one for the good of the people.

Jordi Pujol: "Used to have a Samsung S4 until recently when my dad got an iPhone 6 from a draw.

"As a student always wandering between home, city and campus I quickly found a nice use of a visual snap journal for the cellphone camera. First, back in 2012 until early last year, I used the crappy 3MP of my cheapo phone. Upgraded twice and it's much more useful.

"A nice feature of the phones is that they are inconspicuous. So much that it lets me shoot scenes that I couldn't, wouldn't or shouldn't with a camera. I took a couple frames of a friend with my OM-1 (with Tri-X, carrying it daily now) and his reaction to the camera was much much different compared to the phones. Not just candids, when he was aware of being photographed his behavior was much different. Curious.

"In fact I'm going for exchange to Sweden later this year and I'm thinking of using the iPhone 6 as my sole digital camera. I can only imagine how happy I'd be if I had such a device 10 years ago at age 10. Just the camera and video and nothing else would be enough.

"The video...that stabilizer is black magic vodoo. Well, overall there is a lot of sotware voodoo that makes it a nice camera. But the IS made me shoot a lot much more video. Walkin'? No problem! Steadicam in your hands. Mike, try hyperlapse from instagram. Nice for making timelapses (I have lots of fun with it in the train and landscape).

"...And a couple of years ago I was a bit skeptical on phone photography. I am 20 now. By the way, this comment written in my iPhone 6."

Robert: "Most people taking photos with a cell phone are producing images that are better in almost every way than those produced by skilled amateurs on their high quality film cameras 30 years ago. The cell phone also offers possibilities that have created completely new markets where many of us traditionalists do not take part. When my daughter and I take our Labrador for a walk in the forest, she takes several 'snaps' which always make me think that I would have not been able to do better with my D800. Thus, I feel a point will be reached soon where sales fall and it will no longer be viable for the Nikons and the like to stay in business. I'm now looking forward to this as it might mean a return to my old film cameras. Using these wasn't just about taking photos, it was, in my case, as much about handling them and the non-instant approach."

Many Leica cameras are unique. But now, all 125 examples of the strictly limited Leica M-P ‘Correspondent’ set are all unique, each in its own way. An elaborate wearing process completely by hand has carefully rubbed, scuffed and scratched the black enamel finish away in several places on both the camera and lenses to let the bright brass surface shine through. The look changes every time the camera and lenses are touched and begins new, personally written chapters in the story of their design.

That's right. It's a special limited-edition pre-brassed Leica, with a name calculated to taunt every actual photojournalist who has ever actually used a Leica hard enough to put real wear on it. (Especially those of them who are now out of work.)

As for the, um—aaack!—designer: "Lenny Kravitz is famous around the world as an exceptional and very successful musician. But he treats photography with his Leica with exactly the same passion."

Translations:"Exceptional and very successful musician." Did one of the best-ever covers of The Guess Who's "American Woman."

"Exactly the same passion." Steals classic-rock guitar riffs then proclaims rock and roll is dead.

May I just bring to this post exactly the same passion as Perez Hilton? "Bitch, please!"

(I swear I have never actually spoken that phrase—I'm a grown man, after all—but I did warn you to watch your gag reflex.)

I knew BMW had finally gone off the rails when I learned they were piping fake engine noises into the cabin using the stereo system. Perhaps the "Lenny Kravitz M-P Correspondent" marks the official Jump the Shark moment for the new revived digital-era Leica?

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Ting-li Lin (partial comment): "[Leica has created] a new category of camera condition: 'NLWU' or 'New, Like Well-Used.' Imagine when these cameras go onto the used market, how would a seller describe their conditions? 'Like New, and also Like Well-Used'?"

emptyspaces (partial comment): "Lenny Kravitz is one of the most overrated musicians of all time. If it weren't for the hair and the leather pants, the snakes, the full-length mirrors, the white pianos, and so on...would we care? Do we care? He dresses and acts like a rock star, and that's pretty much it."

Eric Brandon: "While I completely agree with you about the absurdity of the new Leikravitz 'M-P Correspondent,' I'd like to stand up for Lenny Kravitz as a musician. His first album, 1989's Let Love Rule, is a genuine classic and you know as well as anyone that standing on the shoulders of giants doesn't mean you're 'stealing' anything. His most recent album, 2014's Strut, is the best thing he's done since Let Love Rule, and some of the best rock and roll released in the last year. As an audiophile, you should appreciate that both those records sound great too."

William Lewis: "I've recently started playing electric guitar. My axe of choice is a Squier Telecaster. Squier is the 'budget' brand of Fender and is better in many ways, these days, than the low end Fender guitars from Fender proper. Yet go over to the Fender Custom shop and look into buying a reproduction of, say, a classic 1952 Telecaster and you'll have the choice of making it look 'New old stock,' 'Closet Classic,' 'Light Relic,' or 'Heavy Relic' aging. By these standards, the pre-brassed camera would be a 'closet classic' or 'light relic' while the 'heavy relic' would look like a guitar that served someone like Keith Richards or Eric Clapton on the road for decades. An example of a heavy relic Telecaster that is for sale can be seen here. It's just as ugly in guitars as it is in cameras and, frankly, just as stupid. Harsh word I know. But I really can't think of one more appropriate for the precious pretentiousness of a pre-aged tool."

Len Salem: "And then there could be the super extra unique versions with dented bodies, dinged filter threads, and very artistic scratches on the lens outer element. Also, to special order only, fungoid growth inside the lens and light leaks from the base plate. Regrettably all these extras will triple the normal unique price point."

igor: "Does each 'example' come with a large number of unique, artistically made, critically acclaimed shots? If not I am not buying."

Mike replies: You know how you drive an OCD-afflicted collector crazy? Casually suggest that he didn't get the best pre-worn Leikravitz.

"They're all different, you know. And they did a much better job with the brassing on some than on others. Some of them are really beautiful. Yours is...well, it's...okay. I guess."

Gabe (partial comment): "When I was involved with Leica clubs and groups and history I always made sure to read Tina Manley's advice, adventures and experiences. Seeing her comment in the Comments Section here reminds me that she always embodied the classic Leica world-roaming journalist/photographer. Very much worth a look."

Monday, 23 February 2015

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Kenneth Tanaka: "Boy that's sure styled like the Leica T, isn't it? Perhaps sadly for the Konost people my strongest first thought was 'Why the hell couldn't Leica build this damn thing?' What was Leica thinking launching another over-priced and utterly non-competitive secondary product (their 'T') with a new and completely proprietary lens series when they could have leveraged and bolstered their patent assets to build just such a new digital rangefinder body using traditional M-mount Leica lenses? That would have been very cool.

"Well, anyway, good luck with this, Konost! Your product set plans are certainly ambitious. (Thanks for the heads-up Oren and Mike.)"

Craig H: "I'm sure that this will have been pointed out multiple times by the time this comment is posted, but the 'true digital rangefinder' they're referring to is not that the image is captured on a piece of silicon rather than film; it's talking about the rangefinder itself being digital, instead of being an optical system made of glass and mirrors on every Leica and yes, even the Epson R-D1."

ctein: "Dear Mike, Heh, I parsed that wrong, like many others. Youze a sneaky guy. If they can do this properly, which is a huge 'if,' they can produce an accurate rangefinder, which no on else has been able to do. That'd be a nice advance for rangefinder folks. We will just have to wait and see."

Mike replies: Wasn't trying to be sneaky. I was just quoting the website.

Friday, 20 February 2015

[Please note that TOP takes Saturday off. We'll also be offline next Thursday. I'll be back with a new post on Sunday afternoon this week. Please check back then. —Mike the Ed.]

-

In the last post I linked to an "old" (well, 27 months old) article about my purchase of a Nikon D800, after I had called the D800E "the best overall photographic device of any description I have used thus far in my life."

The D800 did not last long in my possession. It was soon replaced by a nifty 16-MP Sony compact that I used for the next two years.

So what happened?

Well, first of all, I'm a geek. And I had some disposable cash back then (no longer). Geeks with disposable cash, as you might know, are often in trouble.

Secondly, don't we all, at some level, kind of pine for the ultimate device?

Consumption is fun for many people. And for those who like it, usually there's some level at which they seek out "the best."

Those levels vary widely. (I almost typed "wildly," which also works.) The tennis star John McEnroe is an art collector, but he cries poor because he can "only" afford individual works that cost up to $500,000 or so at the max. He's "only" worth $100 million, which doesn't allow him to play in the upper echelon of the world's art collectors. When I heard him talk about this (on TV of course), there was sadness in his voice. He probably thinks that if only he were worth $500 million, then he could get some really nice paintings. All would be well in that case! As it is, he's constrained by relative poverty. Poor guy.

A New York city cabbie once proudly told me he had been a member of the 1960 Bulgarian Olympic cycling team. He admired the Leica I was carrying, but said he couldn't afford to own the best cameras—or indeed, the best of anything, except for one thing. His bicycles were "the best of the best of the best." He said so with pride and satisfaction. Lucky man.

Many early photography collectors were people who couldn't afford to be art collectors. They couldn't buy nice paintings, but they could buy nice photographs, which were much cheaper...

...Then. Now, of course, even photographs are getting out of reach for the garden-variety rich. At least the most famous, rarest ones. (The highest verified price ever paid for a photograph was Andreas Gursky's "Rhein II" in 2011, which sold for $4,338,500.)

In fact, many people deliberately collect things they think are inexpensive, only to see others do likewise and prices go up. Who, for instance, would have thought 40 years ago that anyone would ever pay an exorbitant price for a comic book?

There must be a name for this in economics (good thing I'm no good at math, or I'd have ended up as an economist)—the impulse to seek the level at which you can own the best of something. Wherever that level is. Poor ghetto kids in the '90s wanted their Air Jordans. Maybe they had nothing—maybe even not enough food—but they could have the best basketball shoes.

Seeking the best (at whatever level you can) is a common impulse, and I'm not immune. But of course the very idea of "the best" is a mirage. Fact was, the D800 was too big for me, in two ways. The camera was a lot to cart around. And the images were too big too; I just don't need 7360 x 4912 pixels. Didn't know what to do with 'em all.

History was repeating itself. I replaced a Nikon F4s in the late '80s with two N8008's. The latter, smaller, simpler, cheaper, were actually better suited to me.

You'd think I'd learn. But the dream never quite goes away. Sometimes, you just want something that's the best thing. Even if it turns out to be not quite the right thing.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

kirk tuck: "Mike I am so happy I am never afflicted by the desire to buy new equipment. Yep, I just happily soldier on with whatever I bought last month...."

MarkB: "Everything I find interesting enough to collect quickly becomes something I can't afford to get "the best" of (new or old). Pocket watches, maps, lenses, even early Apple computers, can all go into the same bin as McEnroe's art. My lovely partner is the only 'best' in my life, and I'm more than fine with that."

Mikey: "I found the best cure for Gear Acquisition Syndrome was to share a joint bank account with my wife. She's like the Betty Ford clinic for camera buying addicts."

Benjamin Marks (partial comment): "Sometimes I think we have to wait a good chunk of time to see what 'best' actually was. One of the reasons that Leicas fit into this category is that even thought they are not everyone's cup of tea, you can readily find a 50-year-old example that is serviceable and will do what it was designed to do with élan.

"Of course the joke is on all of us as far as digital cameras go. I can state with confidence that they are all, regardless of price or brand, now essentially disposable commodities compared to the best cameras built in the middle of the last century. Try to find a battery in the year 2060 for a 50-year-old Nikon D800? No, the joke is really on us. But, hey, we had a good time and went over the cliff cheering."

Rod Thompson: "Problem is it's only new until you buy it...then it's old!"

Wednesday, 18 February 2015

[UPDATE: And the answer, you get about 10 MP in crop sensor mode, or a heavily vignetted cut-off circular image in FF mode. Thanks, everyone...even the comedians. :-D ]

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Thursday, 12 February 2015

Since we were talking about virtual resolution (discussing the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II and its a multi-shot high-resolution photo mode for static subjects) yesterday, it might be the proper moment to mention digital photography's "Virtual Medium Format" again.

All Sigmas with Foveon sensors are sleepers. All the lenses on Sigmas with Foveon sensors are sleepers even more, because they're excellent but not very many people know it. Therefore the latest Sigma sleeper is a super sleeper, because it's an an outlier in the Quattro range.

The upcoming Sigma dp0 (that's zero) Quattro will feature a high-spec 14mm (21mm-e) ƒ/4 lens. Joining the dp1 Quattro (28mm-e), dp2 Quattro (45mm-e), the announced dp3 Quattro (75mm-e) and the dp3 Quattro + dedicated conversion lens 1.2x (90mm-e), it will round out the range of focal lengths for the Quattro generation of the X3 sensor.

X3 Sigmas should be considered medium-format cameras in very, very small packages. Some of the best, most beautiful results possible in digital imaging come from these cameras, but they require dedication, scrupulous technique, an independent streak, and a certain Simon-of-the-Desert tolerance for asceticism to master.

Mike(Thanks to Kevin Purcell)

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

A. Chao: "The DP2M had me at the first 100% pixel peep. I have since added a DP3M, which images are to my eyes even more magical. I have always hated the digital "haze". Now I know CFA* images are indeed broken. Once I accepted their various limitations I use the DPxM like a film cam loaded with a 36-exposure roll of Kodachrome. Except I get autofocus, instant (not exactly) review and dry lab development. I don't even mind SPP. Clunky, yes. But when the converted image locks in, all's forgiven. Mind blowing devices, these."

Wednesday, 11 February 2015

A megapickle, the term sometimes used (and perhaps coined?)by Michael Reichmann

John Strohbeen, who owns Ohm Speakers, which still has exclusive rights to the wonderful Walsh loudspeaker driver, wrote in a recent blog post: "One of the marks of the serious 'phile'—be it audiophile, bibliophile or other committed enthusiast—is that we squabble about things most outside the community have rarely heard about, let alone care about."

On February 6th, Canon Inc. announced the new Canon 5DS and 5DS R, which feature 51-megapixel full-frame sensors, for 5792 x 8688 pixel resolution, the biggest images yet from a traditional full-frame or less DSLR. (Dpreview already has its First Look posted. Like the Sony A900, however, which was the first camera to achieve 24 MP, it appears the new Canons are optimized for high-res shooting and not great at high ISOs.) With these cameras, Canon has reclaimed the lead from Nikon in the megapixel race.

...Or has an upstart interloper done an unexpected end-around on the twin giants of the camera biz? Olympus's modest E-M5 Mark II has a multi-shot high-resolution photo mode for unmoving subjects. The camera takes eight separate exposures, shifting the sensor a minute amount between exposures, then merges the data for a moiré-free image claimed to have resolution equivalent to a 40-megapixel capture.

That's more than the Nikon D810, and Imaging-Resource has already done a direct comparison between the two—in which the Olympus comes out looking, if anything, slightly the better of the two.

Then again, we've had superlarge high res multi-shot options available before now, in the form of merged panos. You might remember this 64-megapixel shot of mine, made from five Pentax K-20 exposures:

I'm looking forward to the first E-M5 Mk. II vs. Canon 5DS R shootout, coming soon to a geek—er, gear—site near you. (Hint: not this one.)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, is it really true that cameraphiles squabble about megapickles? That's starting to seem a whiff '00s to me. It was indeed something we cared a whole lot about for a while, but (while acknowledging that some people really do need bigger pictures), seems like the race has gotten a bit less important for a lot of us lately. Remember a post I wrote five years ago about The Point of Sufficiency?

The megapixel wars ended for me in 2010, with 24 MP. Big and beyoo-tee-ful enough for Yr. Hmbl. Ed., seen here with a Ctein-made Sony A900 print. But then, I like small prints best.

The lesson of the point of sufficiency is that more is always better—until it isn't any more. The market decides. Whether the market as a whole reached that point when the D800 came out or whether that point is still far in the future, I can't guess.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Bryan Willman: "Don't confuse sufficiency with being most competitive at the moment. Sometimes, staying ahead of the Joneses actually does matter. Yes, for many things, saturation occurs and then development on those aspects of a device will tend to slow down or stop. But in a world where photographers in general, and landscape photographers in particular, are struggling to stand out enough to sell anything, bigger, brighter, clearer, sharper may well still matter. That doesn't go away until it is literally impossible for anybody to tell the difference between one print and the next, regardless of size. It's never about what, say, Mike or Bryan think is plenty good enough, it's about what has enough advantage to sell."

Bruce McL: "I am more familiar with the terms that the computer industry is using: going beyond 'good enough,' and then 'overserving the market.'

"On thing seems clear to me: these cameras, and in fact most cameras from the major manufacturers, are made for people who already own a camera. As you state, there is even room for debate as to how many of these experienced people can really make use of the extra resolution.

"Again, the term I am familiar with is, 'ignoring the bottom end of the market, leaving room for new entrants.' These terms are used in Disruption Theory, which gets a lot of attention in tech circles these days.

"The new entrants, of course, are smart phones and tablets. The camera companies should be very worried, but Disruption Theory predicts that they won’t take the threat seriously until too late. I think a tablet with a good 12 MP sensor and decent lossless semi-RAW processing will keep most people from ever buying a separate camera. I’d say that tablet is about two years away.

"We are in a golden age of cameras now, but in a few years, there simply won’t be enough people buying cameras for camera makers to support all of the models they offer now—as you suggested on the demise of the Olympus XZ-2.

"Oh, and I agree that arguing about megapixels is old fashioned. These days it may be easier to provoke an argument over what lens gives the best bokeh."

SV: "As a pro photog, the 5DIII was pretty much all the megapixels I feel like I'd ever need. But, the appeal of the D810 and the Sony FF is the dynamic range, which at least by DxOMark's measurement, is 3–4 stops better. This makes it all the more disappointing that the new 5DS, that will come out >3 years after the 5DIII, will have no improvement in DR. This new camera feels like a souped-up race car—it goes really fast at the expense of everything else."

GH: "As someone who rarely prints over 13x19, I've been on the fast track away from 'image quality' over the last few years. I've gone from FF sensors to APS-C to Micro 4/3, and, now, a Sony RX100III. Honestly, unless I'm shooting something that requires shallow depth of field, which is essentially never, I struggle to tell the difference between my A900 and Zeiss 24–70mm and this dinky little RX100III...outside of the fact that the RX100III might actually be a little sharper in the corners. I sure don't miss lugging those big cameras around, now that small cameras are good enough."

kirk tuck: "It's funny that this comes up today. I got a call from an ad agency and they wanted me to photograph an animal. About the size of a bread box. A bread box with feathers and lots and lots of detail. But they actually asked me what camera I would be shooting the image with if I got awarded the project. I asked them why. They told me that they were planning to use said image for trade show graphics, that they'd tried a number of stock images but none were high enough resolution. I offered to do a test shot for them so they could see how the files blow up. I put together a still life with colored pencils, yarn, a pin cushion full of pins, thread, fresh oregano stems with leaves, glass jars full of paint brushes, a few watches and some fossils. I used a fast Broncolor strobe to light the setup. I set the camera to ISO 64, used my best macro lens at ƒ/11, put the whole camera shebang on a Gitzo 5 Series Studex, locked the mirror up and triggered the camera. The files out of the camera were great. I saved the uncompressed 14-bit raw files to 16-bit TIFFs and sent them to the client. Each file was a bit over 200 megabytes. They will be able to drag the files into Photoshop and appraise them to their heart's content.

"I am one of three bidders on the projects. Could I do the job with other cameras? I think so. But I'm sure the client has already decided that the file size is critical. Was it worth it to add the D810 to my shooting inventory? When one job will pay back the investment, then yes. It makes sense. Sufficiency? For my art work, you bet. Competition? For a three bid advertising agency job, give me every advantage."

Gordon Lewis: "Having visited the Philadelphia Auto Show this past week, cameras such as the Nikon D810 and Canon 5DS strike me as being a lot like the 'muscle cars' of an automaker's lineup. They may be exciting in the abstract and a lot of fun to use, but in practical terms they are pricey, costly to maintain, and highly impractical for the average buyer. They serve mainly as a way for the manufacturer either to brag or avoid being shaded by its competitors. This is not to say that they are useless, only that very few people have a real need for them."

Mike adds, in reply to kirk and Gordon: I loved my D800 (now the D810), which I owned for half a year before selling on. The only problem I had with it is that I just didn't need it. Although I absolutely understand kirk's point. My current much smaller Fuji is "more my speed."

Ironic in that, pace Gordon's astute points, I tend to like small, "go-karty" cars with 4-cylinder engines and manual transmissions. I have no particular interest in muscle cars.

...Although I did enjoy driving the V8 Audi S5, which I considered a German Mustang GT. Aside from being ruined by numb steering, it was a fun car despite being musclebound. Whoops, are we getting off topic?

Elliot James: "Having only found your blog a few months ago, and enjoying it very much, even with off topic subjects (to a point to be sure), I am mystified as to who Ctein is. I have seen the name (name?) but don't know who it is or what he does. How about a bio of sorts?

Oh, I read somewhere that he is writing a book with John Sanford. Now, I know who he is, and his real name. But who is Ctein?

Mike replies: We're totally mystified as well. I'm half convinced he's an alien, actually—and the only reason we don't know that is because he doesn't want us to know.

Ctein (it's pronounced "kuh-TINE")

Ctein replies to Elliot: If I am a mystery, I am the most Googleable mystery on the planet! Seriously, dude, The Big G is your friend.

David: "Economists (God bless 'em) have an explanation for this—it's called declining marginal utility. Getting that first palace on the French Riviera is really great; but if you've already got five such palaces, getting another one is not really that useful to you. How many pairs of designer underpants do you need? How many can you wear at once? Getting my Oly E-M5 was a major advance over my ancient 4MP Canon; I don't really know what I would have to buy to get a similar amount of improvement over the Oly. As others have noted, 15MP or so is enough for almost all purposes.

"Unlike Kirk Tuck, I doubt anyone will offer me money to produce mega megapixel images. That said, the prospect of having 40MP at your disposal to take images of scenes like the one below (mosque, Isfahan) is attractive."

Friday, 06 February 2015

Mazda readily confesses that for the past quarter century it’s been the world’s unlikeliest caretaker of the DNA of the classic British sports car. Whereas Volkswagen and BMW have appropriated the factories and planning rooms of Bentley and Rolls-Royce, Mazda has been preserving the vital formula for an entire genre of British automotive history. Sort of a sports car seed vault in Hiroshima. That contains a single seed.

Wow. Nailed that right down. Nice writing.

A lot of new photographic models have been introduced in the past few days, and this morning a peculiar thought popped into my head: was there a point in the '50s or '60s in American when the public began to realize that "new models" really weren't? The history of model changes is fascinating if you really look into it. Henry Ford, for instance, thought the Model T was the perfect peoples' car, and he intended to keep making them into perpetuity. He had some justification for that: the Model T was produced for 19 years, and at one point three of every four cars on American roads was a Tin Lizzy. So entrenched was Ford's "this is it" mindset that when Model T sales finally dwindled to a trickle, Ford went several years without selling much of anything, because it wasn't prepared to bring a newer car to market. Ford essentially paved the way for its own competitors—first by failing to update its main model, which allowed competitors a toehold, and then by failing to bring a new model to market, which allowed its competitors to gain market share. The Ford-Chevy wars started all the way back then, but Ford itself was in some ways Chevy's biggest enabler in the beginning.

Cut to the 1950s, and marketers had learned that new models engendered excitement, free publicity, and automatic sales. For a number of years—I'm not enough of an automotive historian to pin it down any better than that—new models were announced annually, to great fanfare and public excitement. (Marketing tricks we take for granted, and see right through, were novelties then.) Of course, it didn't take the public too long to realize that many "new" models weren't strictly new—they just featured a few cosmetic changes, some freshening of the sheet metal, maybe new colors.

The sweet-spot D750: so popular that retailers and discounters arehaving trouble keeping them in stock

The new Canon 5DS, with its groundbreaking 50-megapixel sensor, is a real advancement. The Nikon D750, which is probably the camera of greatest interest to advanced photographers (both pro and enthusiast) right now, is also a genuinely new model. Both, of course, build on the traditions of each company's past models, and each company's past (the D750 to the landmark D700 digital SLR and, before that, the F100 film SLR). But are all the "Mark II" refreshes we see trotted out really new models? Or, while admittedly flagging new features in most cases (or, in some cases, fixes), is some percentage of their purpose just to add a little artificial marketing fizz? I'm going to have to look in to the case of the new Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II (yes, they really did make that nomenclature longer! Funny.)

Think what you like about Mazda's "British-sports-car seed-vault," Mazda gets new Miata/MX-5 model introductions about right. New models do come along, but only when needed—and then, when they do arrive, they're actually new—and it's legitimately an occasion. There have been four Miatas in 25 years. Each one is considerably different and distinct from the others, each one is a genuine advancement, yet each one builds on the basic idea and embraces the model's long traditions—both its own, and that of its antecedents. New models are introduced not gratuitously, but when it makes sense to do so.

(Alfa Romeo had a hand in this new one. The legendary European marque, now owned by the Fiat Group, will be marketing its own variant of the car, with its own styling and a different engine.)

Personally I hope we're entering an era when camera model introductions will slow down some. I hope the D750 is in production for a good long time, so it can benefit from sensible refinements but stay familiar. The churn is fun (and profitable for people like—ahem—photography bloggers), but it would be okay for the camera market to mature a bit. And for new camera intros to become more Miata-like.

By the way, I looked in vain for the name of the photographer at the linked motortrend.com article. Maybe I just overlooked it, but I couldn't find it. S/he did a good job, though, whoever s/he is. I think I'll write to them and ask.

[UPDATE: Thanks to tips from several readers I contacted Jeff Ludes, who tells me the second of these shots is his. Jeff's automotive product photography is outstanding—you can see more at his website. —MJ]

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Moose: "The 'Mark' part seems unneeded, but the 'II' of the new E-M5 Mark II seems to me justified.

"Heavily redesigned body that every reviewer seems to find better made and ergonomically improved.

"Better VF; not new to Oly, but new to the M5.

"Articulated LCD with higher rez. I missed articulation from my 60D, G11, etc. when I went Micro 4/3. A tilt screen is fine for ordinary landscape format shots, but useless for verticals, reaching out to shot around obstacles, and so on.

"Significantly improved IBIS, especially for Macro.

"While the 40 MB HD mode may sound gimmicky or unnecessary to some, I think it's going to be a really big deal for many. It's not just HD. Beyond the shots needed just for higher rez, it moves the sensor to take four shots with the sensor moved one pixel in different directions, so as to have all three colors sensed at each pixel location.

"This means it's the first camera without a Foveon sensor (which has its own problems with metamerism) to avoid the problems with Bayer arrays. The test shots on ImagingResource are astonishing, revealing more clear detail in complex subjects with repeating patterns, fabric and screen printed labels, for example, than a Nikon D810. How much detail moiré has been obscuring in such subjects really surprised me. The DPReview preview shows very clearly the difference in moiré in a test pattern.

"The samples mentioned above are 40 MB JPEGs. What I don't know yet is what kind of detail the 64 MB RAW files will have when expertly processed. The JPEGs have some sharpening halos that limit them compared to the D810 on small, high pixel level contrast subjects, which should be avoidable working from RAW.

"The truer color and lack of moiré will be a BIG deal for product photographers, as one example.

"Clearly it's an awkward feature to use; the IBIS system is not available for its conventional purpose, it takes 3–4 seconds to take one shot, so a tripod and a static subject are required, but the benefits will be worth it for some work.

"And just for me, who still, after 2 1/2 years, can't easily operate the on/off switch on my E-M5 without fumbling and/or looking, it's been moved where it was on my OM bodies. Not as good as the Panny GX7, but still, a blessing."

Peter: "Turned out that the engine Alfa Romeo wanted to mount in the new roadster wouldn't fit in their version of the new Miata/MX-5. So the Italians have decided not to bring their version of the car as the new Fiat Barchetta.

"Fun fact: the previous Barchetta was developed as an answer to the very first Miata/MX-5. Alfa Romeo will develop a new roadster using their own platform."

Robert: "As a Brit, I hate to say it, but he Miata cannot match the traditional British sports cars of the '50s and '60s. The problem with the Miata is that it has the reputation of being ultra-reliable and therefore one loses the charm of having to raise the bonnet (hood) mid-journey, fix something, and then continue driving with oily hands and possibly a smear of grease across the cheeks. If your girlfriend stayed with you after those events, she was truly yours forever."

Jim: "When it came to 'sports cars,' in my opinion English cars were designed and built by blacksmiths, German cars by engineers, and Italian cars by artists. Compare the cars of the late 1950s–1960 era—some English roadsters were built like erector sets with tractor parts (the 1955 Healey we had used the engine and gearbox lifted from a Massey Ferguson tractor); Porsches were nothing more than a VW engine with big carbs in a body with the aero of a ME163, but the Alfas had modern, all-aluminum DOHC engines and 5-speed gearboxes in gorgeous hand-built bodies that rode like limos and out-handled every sports car on the road.

"My brother sold sports cars in the '60s so I got to drive everything—including all the new Ferraris he sold—but I became an Alfa loyalist—owning more than two dozen of them and racing a half dozen of those.

"Unfortunately, the sports car market declined with more regulations on cars and all the iconic sports cars of the '60s became extinct—Alfa being picked up by Fiat and becoming mostly badge-engineered Fiats.

"Twenty years ago, my garage had '57 and '62 Alfa Spiders for racing and a '91 Miata next to them for the street. Mazda built what the old line sports car manufacturers could no longer afford to do—a modern sports car with performance, reliability and looks—yet with parts from the big company's parts bin to cut costs. I was in Boston then and challenged myself to drive the Miata with the top down in every month of the year—and I did it! Since moving to CA, I owned another for a while and miss them enough I am thinking about another.

"What we have here is iconic design, similar to the best cameras that need only incremental improvement because they were done right from the beginning—Leicas, Pentax Spotmatic, Nikon F (add your favorite digital cameras here...if you think they fit)."

Tuesday, 06 January 2015

This year's camera or product of the year in our field is an easy choice for me. Tastes vary, of course, but 2014 will be remembered (well, if camera products o' the moment are remembered at all, it must be added) as the year that mirrorless came of age. The Fujifilm X-T1 and the Panasonic GH4 joined Olympus's late-2013 OM-D E-M1 to form a triumvirate of top-of-the-line cameras. All are "right-sized" mirrorless cameras that are being used as only cameras by certain types of professionals as well as by their natural constituency, dedicated enthusiasts.

I still think the E-M1 is a better all-around recommendation, despite the "wrong" position of the on-off switch. Once learned (an important caveat with that camera and its "crapware" excesses!), it's faster to operate, the ergonomics of its two-position selector switch dual control wheels are superb (indeed, the ergonomics of the whole camera are excellent), and its effective 5-way IBIS is a big score over most competitors. Add the proliferating native lens options and it's a lovely design that "has it all."

2014 is the year the Nikon D750 came out, too—an important enough camera, we think, that it would have walked away with the prize in many years. (If you'd like to see more of our judgments on specific cameras, see our post "The Ten Best Digital Cameras" from December.)

Still, the X-T1 is just too...yummy. Technically it's very advanced, with just about every capability a stills camera c. 2014 could want. The big, beautiful viewfinder is better than an Olympus OM system OVF from back in the day; the size and weight are "Goldilocks" perfect; and the lenses are everything the most fastidious perfectionist could ask for.

I hear its video capabilities will send a videophile running to the open arms of the GH4, and, based on our user sample of one, the Wi-Fi cannot be figured out by middle-aged people. Other than that, the X-T1's worst shortcoming is that the thumbwheel, multi-way controller, and SD card access door are frustratingly mushy, frail, and cheap-feeling. In light of the excellence of the rest of the camera, this is like dropping a 300-yard drive four inches from the hole and then missing the putt—the rest of the knobs 'n' dials on the very same camera feel crisp and precise, and thumbwheels and card doors are not exactly hard to get right.

But never mind. The accumulated effect of the X-T1 is pretty addictive. It does what you want, when you want, and feels, looks, and sounds great doing it. I'm not saying it's even the best Fuji, because Fuji offers a wide choice of cameras and each choice has its fans. But it matches my own taste in cameras, and dovetails well with how I like cameras to work. (I've chosen the X-T1 to use for my OC/OL/OY project this coming year.) Your mileage may vary of course.

The sensor can handle even extreme subject brightness ranges amazingly well

And of course a big plus for any Fuji X system shooter is the expanding range of native lenses. The range includes absolute standouts such as the 23mm ƒ/1.4 (one of the best 35mm-e lenses I've used, and I've used a whole lot of 'em) and the 56mm ƒ/1.2 (for which I'm saving my shekels). And based on Fuji's track record, you can be pretty confident it will be following its own intelligently strategized lens roadmap, too—as this morning's introduction of the professional-level, weather-sealed, constant-aperture 24–84mm-e at CES indicates—the new XF 16–55mm ƒ/2.8 R LM WR.

The new XF 16–55mm, introduced today at CES

A friend in the industry told me a number of years ago that a Canon official had confided to him that Canon was only scared of one other company, and that company was not Nikon, or Leica, or Sony or Panasonic—it was Fuji. Since 2010, we've been seeing, more and more, what that meant.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Ash: "It's great to see the X-T1 win. Completely deserves it in my opinion. I am a little biased though—the X-T1 and 35mm ƒ/1.4 go almost everywhere with me. Maybe this is the year for a project?"